Ben_Borja_Navy_Photo.JPG                                                                                                     

Borja v. Nago

Decision: The U.S. Court of Appeals held that UOCAVA and UMOVA’s differential treatment of voters survived rational-basis review and affirmed the district courts decision.

COURT: The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii and was subsequently appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

OVERVIEW

Democracy and political rights should not depend on where you live—Borja v. Nago is a federal voting rights lawsuit that puts this principle to the test for citizens living in U.S. territories.

Under the federal Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) and Hawaii's Uniform Military and Overseas Voters Act (Hawaii UMOVA), a former resident of Hawaii who is now a resident of the Northern Mariana Islands or a foreign country can continue voting for President and voting representation in Congress in Hawaii by absentee ballot.  But plaintiffs – each former residents of Hawaii – have lost full enjoyment of their right to vote by virtue of living in Guam or the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Right to Democracy joined with six U.S. citizens living in Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands to challenge federal and state laws that unconstitutionally deny them absentee voting rights enjoyed by citizens literally anywhere else in the world (and even outer space!).

WHY THIS CASE MATTERS

The Supreme Court has recognized that the right to vote is uniquely fundamental because it is “preservative of all rights.” However, the voting exclusion challenged in this case demonstrates that under the colonial legal framework that Right to Democracy focuses on dismantling residents of U.S. territories are treated as a subordinate class of citizens. As the Court of Appeals noted under this framework “the vast majority of ‘U.S. citizens residing in the Territories are not being afforded a meaningful voice in national governance.’”

The lawsuit is part of a broader effort by Right to Democracy to advance democracy and self-determination in U.S. territories. Right to Democracy does not take a position on political status - that is for the people of each territory to decide. But when federal or state laws discriminate to unconstitutionally deny residents of U.S. territories their right to vote, courts can and should intervene.

Ninth Circuit Filings

  • October 14th, 2024, Rehearing Petition 

District Court Filings

Media and Other Resources